|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Liberal" Media | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
I don't disagree with that fundamentally -- that war is often a necessary human evil, but WWII was a vastly different animal. They were literally dealing with powers who aspired and had the means of global And Al Qaeda does not have the desire nor the means to go global? Actually they already have gone global. The difference of course being that Al Qaeda is a movement not a government and thus requires a different strategy in neutralizing. It requires thinking outside of the box of military strategy. Again I believe part of the answer lies in: a. Education (ethical and scientific)b. Improving our international image c. Increasing multilateralcooperation with the international community and especially incorporating an Arab coalition force. d. Working with Arab countries to adopt the philosophy that the extremists are their enemies not Americans (this will require us to reduce our national arrogance and apparent imperialistic attitudes) Aren't we going to have to do that regardless? Yes, but do you suggest we allow Al Qaeda and the Taliban to take control over Afghanistan and western Pakistan, allowing a home-base and income to launch future attacks?
Right, so we might as well save some lives and money while we're at it. I just don't see what it is actually accomplishing aside from satiating the need to retaliate. If a perceivable goal was established, I would have no qualms. If ever there was a justifiable war, it would be this one. I am not contending that. I am just questioning what has been gained by it and what the ultimate goal really is. The ultimate goal is to try to neutralize Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters like I said before and allow Afghan anti-Taliban forces to keep them in check. The only way to do this is to stabilize the government and provide economic support until the government can take over. Pulling out at this point will have disastrous results and undo any progress we have made there.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice, sir. Thank you as well. I think we all have good intentions, it is just a matter of where do we go from here.
As somebody who values personal freedoms I have a high respect for their rights. As do I. However, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do not respect these rights. Should we allow them to take back control of the country?
They plot for another attack, which they will do regardless. The can of worms has been open and I don't think you can close Pandora's Box once it has been opened, least of all through the threat of violence against people who are so brainwashed they view suicide as a means of offense. Agreed that deterrence means nothing to them as it meant nothing to the Japanese during WWII either until we dropped the 2nd atomic bomb. I believe the only way to effectively neutralize Al Qaeda and the Taliban is to decapitate its head by eliminating its top leaders and removing its funding and economic base (the opium trade) and help the rest of the Arab world educate themselves to the evils of these extremist groups.
I do think that not fighting on two fronts will help, since the US and coalition forces can consolidate all of their resources to one front. Which is why I disagreed with going to war with Iraq in the first place. However, we cannot change the past and dwelling on it does nothing.
These people are manufactured, and the more their media and religious figures can manipulate the coalition's intent, the more anger will draw the people on the fence in to fight. Agreed. However, we cannot reduce our forces in Afghanistan without endangering the forces that are there. We must finish our job there first.
Long story short, I am not categorically stating that the war in Afghanistan is terrible, but I am stating some genuine concerns that I think need to be addressed without national pride blinding us. 100% agree with you Hyro. Anyone that says that all we need to win the war in Afghanistan is national pride and more firepower (i.e. I can't tell you how many times I here idiots say 'let's just nuke the ragheads and make Afghanistan/Iraq into a parking lot') are idiots and a danger to our military and really do not understand modern warfare. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The current discussion is WAY tangential to the topic theme. It better belongs at the Why we need to be out of Iraq topic, or better yet, the Politicus Maximus topic there cited.
Going to close this one down. It can be reopened later (see link in "signature" to find where to make the request). Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Topic had been closed for terminal topic abandonment. Now it's reopened.
A discussion on Minnesota Public radio: Does public radio have a liberal bias? | MPR News There is a bit of current news at the recording beginning, and also in the middle. It's been a while since I listened to it, but one thing I remember is a conservative commentator's example of liberal bias. There was a earlier MPR (or maybe NPR) story where the CEO of Intel (whose name I don't recall) proposed something along the lines of a 5 year tax moratorium for new businesses. The public radio interviewer asked "Can we afford this?". The conservative commenter cited this question as being liberal bias, as anything proposing reduced taxes is a conservative position. Anyway, something for you to listen to. The whole thing is 54:08, including the local news breaks. Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Even if MPR were pandering to liberals, who cares? Conservatives get pandered to by slanted reporting, misrepresentation, and high-volume bluster. Liberals get pandered to by insightful and accurate reporting. Hence, public radio listeners are more informed than consumers of other media.
When you pander to liberals, everybody wins. There should be more "liberal bias" in the media.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry, you're delusional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Transcript:
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/03/25/03 Comments:http://www.onthemedia.org/...odes/2011/03/25/segments/159091 There is also a download link (MP3) for the audio, available at either of the above pages. Added by edit:
quote: Source: FAIR - FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Sorry, you're delusional. Come on, Coyote. The most popular program on NPR is two guys who talk about cars. "Liberal bias." What a joke! That's never been anything more than a shibboleth in the conservative culture of perpetual victimhood. Conservativism can never fail, it can only be failed, and any time the conservative agenda is blocked it's not because they were wrong, it's because a powerful liberal conspiracy marshaled against them. Don't you guys ever take personal responsibility? No, of course not; it's always someone else who's "delusional."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Don't you guys ever take personal responsibility? Dammit Crash, you know as well as I do that personal responsibility is only for single mothers, pregnant teenagers and any woman seeking an abortion. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Most elections lately have split the country very nearly in half, with near 50% on each side.
The vast majority of the traditional media folks come from only one side. Is it any wonder that the other side feels there is a bias? Here are some details: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The vast majority of the traditional media folks come from only one side. Well, but that's where you palm the pea, now isn't it? You say "traditional media", where "traditional" means "everything that's not conservative", which allows you to claim that all "traditional media" is "liberal" or moderate, because you've simply defined it that way. I mean, what's not "traditional" about Fox News or CNBC or Joe Scarbourough on MSNBC? What's not "traditional" about the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal? What's not "traditional" about Ross Doubthat's column in the New York Times or Clarence Page's in the Chicago Tribune? What's not "traditional" about the National Review, founded by William F. Buckley Jr. more than 60 years ago? What's not "traditional" about former NPR contributor Juan Williams? What's not "traditional" about the hundreds of prominent conservatives in the media? That they're not liberals? Doesn't that make your complaint completely circular? Wow, yeah, it turns out when you only interview liberals about their voting preferences, they tend to vote Democratic. I almost fell out of my seat!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
The voting patterns of "top" media folks is irrelevant.
When you talk about bias in media, you refer to bias in the actual reporting- adding spin to the facts of a report to make it appear to favor a particular viewpoint or soften the impact of a scandal, etc. It doesn;t matter whether Joe Reporter or Joe's boss or the owner of the company votes Democrat or Republican or the Basketweaver's Party. What matters is whether the actual reporting is accurate to the facts at hand, and that relevant facts are consistently reported regardless of which political view those facts may or may not support. That, of course, is what "fair and balanced" means. If Party X introduces controversial or significantly-impacting Bill Y in Congress, any objective and impartial news agency should report the facts of the bill - who introduced it, a summary of the bill, the implications of how the bill is supposed to change the status quo, etc. If a member of Party Z and a member of Party X both commit adultery and are caught, an objective and impartial news network should report both. If you want to demonstrate media bias, provide relevant evidence. I don't care who Bill O'Reilly or Arianna Huffington vote for - I care about the actual consistency and accuracy of the reports of their respective media outlets. This may surprise you, but it's entirely possible to vote relatively consistently for one party or another, and still provide unbiased and objective reporting on that party and its political opponents. Steven Colbert once made the joke that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." In his humor, there is wisdom - sometimes reality favors one political view or another. The objective facts of an event may easily be construed as bias by individuals who find those facts to be politically distasteful or harmful to their chosen "side." Why don't you start, Coyote, by telling us what makes you think there is a "liberal" media bias in the first place? Are there outlets that you believe are biased toward the "conservative" side? Is anyone relatively unbiased? Why do you believe those things? What facts convinced you? Is it simply a series of studies done on the voting habits of the so-called "media elite?" Or can you identify specific trends in actual reporting that show a clear bias?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4539 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Probably this got mentioned earlier in the thread, but here's a prime example of media bias: talk radio.
Talk radio started becoming a significant media outlet starting in the 90's, back when the FCC Fairness Doctrine had been dumped and plenty of AM radio stations were ready to be gobbled up by Clear Channel and the like. Talk radio is very much a conservative outlet, in terms not only of the ratio of conservative to liberal shows, but even more so in terms of influence. Who do you think has a bigger voice - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, or Thom Hartman and Stephanie Miller? Face it, conservative hosts tend to be, shall we say, a bit more flamboyant and entertaining, seeing as how they tend not to feel the need to be constrained by facts, decency, or logic. I'm just saying. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon Reality has a well-known liberal bias.-Steven Colbert I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.- John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Steven Colbert once made the joke that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." During an interview on NPR. At least that's when I heard him say it. My friend does not like NPR at all. She complains that they're far too unbiased and balanced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
During an interview on NPR. No, actually, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, during the Bush Administration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9200 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
quote: Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024